Manlove v. State

• Court: Indiana Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HUNTER; LEWIS
• Citation: Manlove v. State, 250 Ind. 70, 235 N.E.2d 62, 12 Ind.Dec. 494 (Ind. 1968)
• Decision Date: 25 March 1968
• Docket Number: No. 30846,30846
• Parties: Edward MANLOVE, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.

Page 62

235 N.E.2d 62

250 Ind. 70

Edward MANLOVE, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.

No. 30846.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March 25, 1968.

Hall Cochrane, Indianapolis, for appellant.

John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., R. Robert Yeager, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

HUNTER, Judge.

The Attorney General, in his petition for rehearing, complains that this Court has altered its standard for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence by the opinion heretofore filed.

The question with which this Court concerned itself was whether any reasonable man could have concluded from the evidence that there was sufficient substantial evidence of probative value to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to answer that question in a case where all the evidence is circumstantial, we were required to ask ourselves whether any reasonable man could have concluded from the evidence that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence was excluded.

Each paragraph of the Court's opinion must be read in context with every other paragraph. When that is done, it will be seen that the standard of this Court in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction has not changed. On appeal, in order to affirm such a conviction as based upon sufficient evidence, this Court must find that there is substantial evidence of probative value from which a jury could reasonably find or infer the existence of each material element beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable men might differ as to whether the evidence most favorable to the State is sufficient, the verdict of the jury will stand. Only where no reasonable man could be...